Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25151225›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2014

Safety and immunogenicity of a candidate tuberculosis vaccine MVA85A delivered by aerosol in BCG-vaccinated healthy adults: a phase 1, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

Iman Satti, Joel Meyer, Stephanie A Harris, Zita-Rose Manjaly Thomas, Kristin Griffiths, Richard D Antrobus, Rosalind Rowland, Raquel Lopez Ramon, Mary Smith, Sharon Sheehan and 2 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01497769 (A Phase I Trial to Compare the Safety and Immunogenicity of Candidate TB Vaccine MVA85A Administered by the Aerosol Inhaled Route and the Intradermal Route in Healthy BCG-vaccinated Adult Subjects), which is not on this map. Cited by 105 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01497769 phase1completednot on this map

A Phase I Trial to Compare the Safety and Immunogenicity of Candidate TB Vaccine MVA85A Administered by the Aerosol Inhaled Route and the Intradermal Route in Healthy BCG-vaccinated Adult Subjects

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OxfordRan2011 to 2013Enrolled24ConditionsTuberculosisArmsAerosol inhaled MVA85A, Intradermal MVA85A
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

105 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 175 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. MVA85A vaccine to enhance BCG for preventing tuberculosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Immunogenicity and Safety of the M72/AS01Frontiers in immunology · 2019
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Challenges in developing new tuberculosis vaccines.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. TB-vaccines: Current status & challenges.The Indian journal of medical research · 2024
    Review
  19. Nanotechnology of inhalable vaccines for enhancing mucosal immunity.Drug delivery and translational research · 2024
    Review
  20. Review

45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Iman SattiThe Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Joel MeyerThe Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Stephanie A HarrisThe Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Zita-Rose Manjaly ThomasThe Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Kristin GriffithsThe Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Richard D AntrobusThe Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rosalind RowlandThe Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Raquel Lopez RamonThe Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mary SmithThe Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sharon SheehanThe Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Henry BettinsonOxford Centre for Respiratory Medicine, The Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Helen McShaneThe Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: helen.mcshane@ndm.ox.ac.uk.
Jenner Institute · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBChurchill Hospital · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 095780
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntradermal MVA85A, a candidate vaccine against tuberculosis, induces high amounts of Ag85A-specific CD4 T cells in adults who have already received the BCG vaccine, but aerosol delivery of this vaccine might offer immunological and logistical advantages. We did a phase 1 double-blind trial to compare the safety and immunogenicity of aerosol-administered and intradermally administered MVA85A

methodsIn this phase 1, double-blind, proof-of-concept trial, 24 eligible BCG-vaccinated healthy UK adults were randomly allocated (1:1) by sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes into two groups: aerosol MVA85A and intradermal saline placebo or intradermal MVA85A and aerosol saline placebo. Participants, the bronchoscopist, and immunologists were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was safety, assessed by the frequency and severity of vaccine-related local and systemic adverse events. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity assessed with laboratory markers of cell-mediated immunity in blood and bronchoalveolar lavage samples. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed for 24 weeks after vaccination. Immunogenicity to both insert Ag85A and vector modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was assessed by ex-vivo interferon-γ ELISpot and serum ELISAs. Since all participants were randomised and vaccinated according to protocol, our analyses were per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01497769.

findingsBoth administration routes were well tolerated and immunogenic. Respiratory adverse events were rare and mild. Intradermal MVA85A was associated with expected mild local injection-site reactions. Systemic adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. Three participants in each group had no vaccine-related systemic adverse events; fatigue (11/24 [46%]) and headache (10/24 [42%]) were the most frequently reported symptoms. Ag85A-specific systemic responses were similar across groups. Ag85A-specific CD4 T cells were detected in bronchoalveolar lavage cells from both groups and responses were higher in the aerosol group than in the intradermal group. MVA-specific cellular responses were detected in both groups, whereas serum antibodies to MVA were only detectable after intradermal administration of the vaccine.

interpretationFurther clinical trials assessing the aerosol route of vaccine delivery are merited for tuberculosis and other respiratory pathogens.

fundingThe Wellcome Trust and Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre.

Indexed as

Administration, InhalationAdultAerosolsAntigens, BacterialBCG VaccineCD4-Positive T-LymphocytesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansImmunity, CellularInjections, IntradermalMaleMiddle AgedMycobacterium bovisSafetyTuberculosisAerosolsAntigens, BacterialBCG VaccineMVA 85ATuberculosis VaccinesVaccines, DNA

Identifiers

PMID25151225
PMCPMC4178237
OpenAlexW2165040021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.